Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Small Modular Reactors

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by BMD, Sep 16, 2017.

  1. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  2. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    295
    S-PRISM could have been a top design powering the earth towards a safe and green future but for the anti-nuke cultists. That said costs will be an even larger problem (than say Hinkley) with it until a steady production line can be established. Which requires a steady stream of orders. Good luck with that.

    The biggest problem for all these super-duper reactor designs is that regulations and litigation has killed off most of the nuclear industry in the West. The massive initial investments, long lead time and expertise in metallurgy basically means that nuclear power necessarily requires either government investment or backing from large companies like GE/Westinghouse. As we can see one of them already has a superb design which been sitting in the attic eating dust since the 90's (fuk u greenpeace).

    That along with the harebrained decision from Mr. Stupid himself to shut down MSR's in favor of Liquid Metal Fast Breeder's which aren't bad per se (ala PRISM) but MSR would have been soo much better and decidedly superior at dodging anti-nuke paranoia. The worst part is that the US couldn't wait for the Chinese to put some effort into stealing their designs this time and instead just handed over them their research :fighting1:

    At least India would never have to suffer the ignominy of importing Chinese MSR's in the future. More because of our relations rather than our 3rd rate reactors being superior or even par even if we could somehow make them without a 30 yr delay.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
    Bloom 17 likes this.
  3. GSLV Mk III

    GSLV Mk III Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    1,895
    Country Flag:
    India
    Seriously??
     
  4. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Biggest problem for them is that Biomass (wood pellets) is greener, safer and cheaper, rendering nuclear plants obsolete, hence why we're only building one. Biomass plants can also be made by converting existing coal power stations. You can also make useful byproducts by washing the biomass first and from the ash afterwards. Whereas all nuclear does is burn a big hole in your pockets and produce high level nuclear waste that lasts thousands of years, as well as rendering the odd city uninhabitable every so often. Sometimes the most complicated solution just isn't the best.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  5. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    295
    Hahahaha
    Cutting and burning off trees is 'greener'. This is the kind of thing a leftist greenie lunatic would say. I am disappointed.

    Besides there is no 'nuclear waste'. Just unspent fuel that can be burned up in proper reactors like PRISM, LFTR or ADS. Mind you, for all the waste scare-mongering, present LWR's produce just 30 grams of 'waste' per person. Besides the long lived stuff is obviously not very radioactive.

    All these Gen 4 reactors also have a thing known as 'negative void coeffeciency' which means it is physically impossible for them to melt down. Which only happened thrice compared to millions of reactor hours of safe operations around the world.
     
  6. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Yes it is, because sustainably managed forests grow back wood faster than it's used, hence absorbing more CO2 that is emitted. For a given large biomass company, the forests they take wood from grow 206Mt of wood, 126Mt is harvested and 81Mt of that (which is leftover from the furniture and construction industry) is burnt. See page 14.

    https://www.drax.com/wp-content/upl...-and-accounts-2016-Smart-Energy-Solutions.pdf

    You can't burn transuranic waste and even a perfect theoretical liquid fluoride thorium reactor (which doesn't even exist yet) produces unusable waste.

    They would still be a target for terrorism too. When you combine that with higher electricity prices and CapEx they make no sense, even though they are fascinating from a technological point of view. Much easier and more cost effective to just plant trees and cut branches so that they grow faster. It's archaically simple but it works.
     
  7. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    295
    No it is not 'greener' than a non-polluting source of energy ala nuclear. No technology that relies upon adding to the 36 billion tonnes of CO2 we already spew into our atmosphere, cutting down the already shrinking number of trees left to absorb the carbon waste (besides sustaining the habitats and the food chains) and spewing deadly NO2 and SO2 into the already acidic atmosphere; can be called 'green'. There isn't anywhere near the sawdust in the world to power the needs of just one India despite its low rate of energy consumption per capita. You are going to have to cut down massive gobs of forestland to make it work on a Terawatt scale.

    Yes, but it is about 1% of the waste of the LWR which as already mentioned is about 30 grams per person per annum, and the worst lasts only 300 years.

    It is far more cheaper than unreliables and MSR could conceivably give coal a run for its money. There is no threat from terrorism unless someone 9/11'ed the plant which hasn't happened since 9/11.

    'swaths half the size of England are lost each year'
    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/

    so easy:angel:
     
  8. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Nuclear is polluting. There are trace amounts of radioactive material leaked even in the best possible cases, then you have the supporting industry required for nuclear, which also pollutes. There is also no way to stop seagulls etc. landing on contaminated pipe bridges in waste (re)processing plants.

    You also fail to understand biomass. The forests in question were grown specifically for industry, when trees are felled, more are planted. More wood is grown than harvested, therefore more CO2 is absorbed and zero net deforestation occurs. Wood burning also doesn't produce SO2, and NO2 is removed by BOFA systems, just as radioactive dust is removed by HEPA filters.

    Theoretically it is, but waste is waste and as power demands increase, it will increase.

    Terrorism is always a possibility though.

    That is due to unsustainably managed forests, which in the case I provided is not the case.

    P14
    https://www.drax.com/wp-content/upl...-and-accounts-2016-Smart-Energy-Solutions.pdf

    Deforestation is down to unscrupulous countries, who don't replant trees or manage forests properly.

    Vs coal, nuclear was sensible, vs biomass it isn't.
     
  9. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    295
    There have been zero radiation deaths from Fukushima - a full blown meltdown. ZERO.
    There were four million killed from air pollution last year alone. And you want to increase that?

    We sadly live in the real world where people given a strong incentive to kill naturally grown forest - hmmm something like a magical wood chomping 'carbon neutral' power plant in need of fuel, will kill them.

    http://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

    The best part was however this
    Hahaha

    [​IMG]
    Best case scenario (coz its realistic), it takes until year 2070 for carbon emission to fall below those produced by alternatively burning COAL. 2095 to reach the already claimed 'carbon neutrality'. You may continue to hold out for this long distant nirvana, but global warming won't.

    This is simply a no-contest. Nuclear is king.
     
  10. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    4,000 were killed by Chernobyl. Fukushima has rendered a huge area uninhabitable. Deaths attributable to air pollution are questionable. Plus, power stations tend to be located in rural area, where the air quality is many orders of magnitude better than in cities with or without a power station.

    The trees grow back faster than they are cut down.

    Nope.
    http://www.stovesonline.co.uk/fuel-CO2-emissions.html

    You can't replant coal.

    And nope again, a sustainably managed forest will absorb CO2 faster than burning the wood emits it. How can 206 million tonnes of wood grow back and 81 million tonnes be burnt without the growth of the 206 million tonnes absorbing more CO2? Show me the equation for photosynthesis. Where does the wood come from?
    https://www.drax.com/wp-content/upl...-and-accounts-2016-Smart-Energy-Solutions.pdf

    [​IMG]
     
  11. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    295
    That was in 1989 Soviet Union when the danger of nuclear meltdown wasn't as well understood (hence the slow evac) and it took a Soviet operator ignoring all safety protocols built in the ancient 1st generation nuclear reactor to **** it up. Besides far more people have died from say dam failure (230000 - Banquao) yet there is no mass paranoia about them. That is because leftist anti-nuke cultists have poisoned more minds than all the radiation from Chernobyl.

    Nuclear is the safest energy source of them all.

    [​IMG]

    Meltdown-proof MSR and IFR's are walkaway-safe. Do you know what that is? You can leave them alone and your city will remain perfectly habitable.

    It takes about an hour to cut a nice sized tree. About twelve years before you could cut it again.
    1 hour =/= 12 years

    And that is for plantations.

    Meanwhile all the allied ecosystem dependent on the natural forest trees are destroyed and cannot be reproduced by plantations.

    As already shown forests are being cut down at a massive scale just to meet the current infinimestal demand for pellets. If we talked on a global alternative energy scale, all the forests on earth will have to be completely cut down. Even if we replaced them with plantations, we would still managed to completely destroy their natural ecosystems. Catastrophic

    The problem is that there is a massive lag between energy release ( cutting/burning) and energy caputre (tree growth) as the graph showed

    [​IMG]

    It will take 75 years to reach carbon neutrality. Meanwhile we are already leaking 36 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. Its a non starter.

    All this can be comfortably done by nuclear. As the French have demonstrated, they have the lowest emissions per-capita in EU.
     
  12. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    BS.

    How pray tell does anybody die from a solar farm? I somehow doubt there have been 1500x4000 or 6 million deaths associated with coal power production.

    Except it isn't done in discrete chunks like that, trees are constantly planted and a sustainably managed forest always has trees at all stages of their growth. Often the tree is not cut down either, the branches are just cut, which speeds up growth. It's very simple, more wood grown than burnt, means more CO2 absorbed than emitted. How could it not do?

    No habitat is destroyed if the forest grows faster than harvested.

    Nope, because many of these forests were grown for wood pellet production in the first place, and like I said, it's a continuous process, not discrete, hence there is no lag and new growing trees absorb CO2 faster than old trees, which are no longer growing. Nearby trees also grow faster when old trees are removed.

    Not when you count the full lifecycle impact of nuclear, or the crazy cost. You have to mine that uranium, transport it, process it, reprocess it, process the waste, vitrify it, surround it in concrete etc. and store it forever, hoping that it never leaks.
     
  13. The enlightened

    The enlightened Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    295
    BS

    BS

    BS

    BS

    BS

    BS

    There. Did it. :BVICTORY:

    Nuke for the win:rockroll:
     
  14. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,034
    Likes Received:
    1,278
    Country Flag:
    India
     
  15. Flyboy!

    Flyboy! Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    522
    Country Flag:
    India
    Solar (@ > 2000 kWh/m2 for most part of the year) and nuclear energy (Vast thorium reserves) is the way forward. Once thorium reactor tech in India becomes completely indigenous with heavy water/molten salt reactors, we can be self sufficient and sell energy to neighboring countries. Hydro electricity causes various economic and environmental issues due to large catchment areas.

    Coal is dying but for the strong mining lobby that exists. Illegal activities that are associated with mining will be lost.

    We need more Kalams and less Modis/Rahuls. Dono sala chapri sadak chaaps.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017

Share This Page